Although the protracted deliberations did not serve the process well, the Windham Town Council’s approval of developer Peter Busque’s quarry application ultimately struck a fine balance between business and rural quality of life in town.

After reviewing 17 criteria in the application for the 55-acre quarry set on 160 acres off Nash Road, the Town Council reversed its denial of Busque’s application a year ago, due in part to changes in the size and scope of operations that showed encouraging levels of cooperation between the sides.

While the land Busque bought for $1.75 million is zoned for the quarry operation, Busque has reduced the area he would mine by 15 acres, increased the buffer zone to minimize dust and noise from the operation, and most recently agreed not to blast or drill at the quarry from Nov. 1 through April 30 each year.

The processed rock material called aggregate mined at the quarry would be trucked out during the winter, but the compromise crafted by the Town Council and agreed to by Busque last month signified that quality of life questions for quarry abutters have not been ignored.

Councilors were not united on four criteria – the noise, vibrations and potential well and wetland contamination the quarry could cause. Those criteria, opposed by councilors Bob Muir and Elizabeth Wisecup, are the most subjective and may only be quantified after quarry operations have begun.

While Muir asserted property values for abutters, like kennel owner Carl Russell, would be harmed, it was an uncommon alliance between Councilor John MacKinnon and councilors Blaine Davis and Kaile Warren that rebutted the argument because they said it is based on anecdotal evidence.

Had a majority of councilors rejected the whole application on the “what-if” criteria of declining property values, excessive decibel, vibration and dust particle levels when both the Planning Board and experts hired by Busque are confident local and federal ordinances and standards can be met, the board would have made a decision based on emotion, not the facts at hand.

Russell’s frustration and eloquence were evident Wednesday as he accused councilors of ignoring property values and placing business interests ahead of rural beauty. But that is an argument based on the idea there should be no quarry at all, while Busque and councilors worked hard to ensure a business that has a legal right to be established on that land is not an imposition.

In addition to limiting when he can drill and blast, Busque must conduct more noise tests 90 days after operations begin and knows credible complaints made to the code enforcement officer and state Department of Environmental Protection could close the quarry.

Can a quarry not be an imposition on neighbors? It seems unlikely. But the difference between an imposition and a hazard violating ordinances and laws is clear. That clarity is the basis of a good decision by the Windham Town Council.

David Harry, editor